Practical values: 0.216mm nozzles in AFN

Hello

Following the theoretical considerations, here are some practical experiences with 216mm nozzles in the AFN, without any other modifications.

Surprisingly, there is no noticeable increase in jerky behavior. This is likely due to the fact that, according to VAGCOM, approximately 1 mg/stroke more fuel is injected during idle, which corresponds to a more fuel-efficient pump setting and adaptation, thereby reducing jerky behavior.

Apparently, the nozzles open slightly later due to the higher opening pressure (220 instead of 190 bar, according to memory), so the metering valve must be further deflected in order to still inject only the usual idle amount.
This also applies to the fact that the starting point for spraying is approximately 15 units (1.5°?) later than the default setting, which in turn can explain the sometimes slightly poorer warm-up. This should hopefully be resolved by (an as yet uncompleted) adjustment of the pump settings.

The engine's idle speed appears slightly firmer in idle, but even more so during driving.

The improvement in performance becomes noticeable around approximately 1300 rpm, and it feels like a well-controlled power source. The time spent in 3rd gear between 2000 – 4000 rpm has been reduced by approximately 10%.

The engine speed increases by approximately 20 rpm according to DZM. Less than estimated, but it's clearly "one finger-width" higher than before.
This could be explained by a "steeper" deceleration in the range above 5000 rpm, as I had assumed in the thread on the theory of nozzle replacement.

Overall Impression: Approximately 10% additional power between 2000 and 4000 rpm without extending the injection time should provide a good foundation for extremely performance-oriented drivers to further increase the injection volume, without reaching the piston melting limit too quickly.
An increase in the printing pressure is likely necessary to avoid completely darkening entire areas.

Hi Ulf!

Sounds like you've checked everything thoroughly (as always). I'm glad that the practical application aligns with our theories. What else can I say? Would you perhaps like to have an exhaust test performed?

Best regards, Ernst

Ernst S. wrote:

Would you perhaps like to have an exhaust test performed?

Hi Ernst

it will still take until the next TÜV inspection... firstly, the normal fuel consumption over a few 100 km will be determined under ((as close as possible) the same driving conditions as with the normal nozzles.

hi,
I installed the 216cc injectors on my 1Z Passat yesterday, and I couldn't wait to see what kind of results I would get. Since I also have a chip inside, I had to make some adjustments.

I had to, however, readjust the pump setting (metering valve) so that it corresponded again to the series setting (which I had used with the series nozzles), because at 1.1 bar, the engine was running very rough. Therefore, I set the metering valve back to the series setting (perhaps slightly less), and then started the train.

What immediately caught my attention was how smoothly the engine runs, both at idle and while driving.
The times from 2000 to 4000 look like this now.
1 Measurement in rain, approximately 5.97
2 Measurements in rain, approximately 6.1

before with chip and about 10 cents, approximately 6.4 seconds.

Another noteworthy observation is that the engine produces significantly more power at higher RPMs compared to before. I didn't think that the injection timing was slightly retarded due to the larger nozzles, so I'll test with 10Nf at the NBF.

No shaking.

tim27 wrote:

I hadn't realized that the injection timing was slightly retarded due to the larger nozzles, so I'll try with 10Nf at the NBF.

Hi Tim

Assume that the unscheduled (!!) start of spraying is approximately 2 - 3°C later than with the (presumably old) standard nozzles.
If the pump is available early enough so that the control system can regain the set value, then it's okay.

If you then try to achieve an even earlier injection start using adaptation or NBF signal manipulation, the control system may no longer be able to do so -> The fuel injector position is at the early injection point at full throttle.

Then you would need to further adjust the pump to achieve the target value (the slightly higher motor load is irrelevant here).

What car do you still have, or what does the DZR offer as a "fresh" 2000-4000 hour period?

hi,
I installed the 216cc injectors on my 1Z Passat yesterday, and I couldn't wait to see what kind of results would come out.

Hi Tim,

in your other post there was something about A6 nozzles. Do you know from which engine? Or the Etnr.?

Greetings,

Maciek

Hi,

Ulf: This is a VW Passat Kombi, model year 1996, with 90 horsepower, standard engine. After the DZR, I used to stop around ~10-11 seconds without tuning. That would be around 90 horsepower.

Can I have the injection start checked with a VAG com? {QUESTION}
So, wenn nach dem VAG-Kommunikation der Einspritzbegin um (Beispiel) 3° zu spät anliegt, muss ich dann den Einspritzventil-Drehzahl ändern, richtig?

What values do you prioritize when choosing your golf clubs?

can I actually increase the boost pressure with 10 cents on my STG?
From 1.1 to 1.15 bar???

tim27 wrote:

Can I have the injection start checked with a VAG com? {QUESTION} So, wenn nach dem VAG-Kommunikation der Einspritzbegin um (Beispiel) 3° zu spät anliegt, muss ich dann den Einspritzpumpe drehen, stimmt das?

In your case, I would first check the starting point of the spray after checking the basic setting diagram.

If that's the case, and the target value should not be reached even at full throttle, while the throttle position sensor shows almost 100%:
Then the pump should be adjusted after startup, specifically by approximately half of the largest difference between the target and actual value (at maximum pedal position) as displayed by VAGCOM, plus an additional safety margin of approximately 1°.
These specifications apply to the pump, where there is approximately 1 mm on the front screw (timing belt side) corresponding to approximately 1 degree.

Quote:

I can actually increase the boost pressure with 10 cents in my STG? From 1.1 to 1.15 bar???

As long as the charging station is involved, the answer is essentially yes, as stated in the 10c article.
But 2.15 bar absolute(!) instead of 2.10 will only result in about 2% more cylinder filling - with that, you won't be able to significantly verschandeln your .

Quote:

This is a VW Passat estate, model year 1996, with 90 horsepower, original specifications. After the DZR, I had once stopped un-tuned, with approximately ~10-11 seconds. That would be around 90 horsepower.

Ooh: from 10 down to 6 sec: this would roughly mean that the 90 hp engine has now become approximately 150 hp
Or did something not seem right with the engine during the 10-11 second measurement?
Or is your clutch already worn out?

Hi,
wie kommst du auf 150PS????ich komme auf ca.134PS und ca.310Nm laut DZR.

To the question about the coupling: I have no problems with the coupling; it works very well.

With the diesel engine, it's not as bad as it sounds. I think that at 1.15 bar, the engine will no longer make that rattling noise! Because then I would have a 'clean' diesel again.
Oh no, I have to get my car inspected next month, and I need to get it checked out by a mechanic beforehand.

tim27 wrote:

Hi, how do you get 150 HP????I get about 134 HP and about 310 Nm according to the DIN standard.

Hi

(since I don't have DZR data like weight and 2000-speed)
If a 90-horsepower engine is revved from 2000 to 4000 rpm in 10 seconds, then approximately 150 horsepower are needed for about 6 seconds.

Quote:

Oh no, I have to get my car inspected next month, and I need to get it checked out beforehand.

Then tell us about the outcome of the assessment!

Hi,
I tried driving yesterday with 1.2-1.3 bar, but I had to realize that the engine was still a bit rough. This was a bit disappointing :cry: because I was already expecting the roughness to decrease significantly. After that, I had the suspicion that this could also be caused by the slightly late injection timing, perhaps? :roll:

The oil temperature is also increasing a bit faster since the replacement of the nozzles, so I'll need to adjust it accordingly :oops:

Wie sind denn deine DZW von 2000-4000 Ulf? :wink:

tim27 wrote:

How are your DZW from 2000-4000 Ulf?

Have I written anything about "my"?
The experiments will be carried out by a well-known acquaintance, who, incidentally, also owns a G3 AFN.

With some fine-tuning of the RWG and the T4 nozzles, the car runs smoothly in 3rd gear. Acceleration from 2000 to 4000 rpm in approximately 5.3 seconds (without any other modifications).

Hello again

According to the initial fuel consumption tests using the large nozzles, the fuel consumption has increased by approximately 0.1 liters / 100 km, exceeding 450 km.
The owner of the test AFN assured me that he was driving in the same way as usual on normal roads (country roads and villages).
However, the consumption tests for used diesel also include several fuel-intensive tests, idling times for noise control, etc., so that the comparison of fuel consumption can be considered practically neutral.

After the pump adjustment made by Früh (to compensate for the delayed fuel injection caused by the higher opening pressure of the 216 nozzles), the starting behavior is now largely as usual again.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to experience the car on the highway, and I was almost stunned: the car accelerates incredibly fast, as if I had lost at least 200 kilos of weight
The effortless push in the 5th. Gang (which now appears in terms of acceleration to be at least as short as the normal 4th) quickly goes up to 180 and continues to accelerate
"Constant speed driving is out; the new trend is to gradually accelerate to around 100 or 120 and to repeatedly marvel at the starting point, which allows the speedometer to quickly rise to around 160, making you feel like you need to hurry when counting in 5-step increments."

Furthermore, the seat pressure indicates that the Vmax is still far from being reached, while even when looking in the rearview mirror, one can surprisingly not see any smoke plumes, even when looking at the headlight of the (usually rapidly decreasing ) rear vehicle.

At least subjectively, the large nozzles on the highway significantly increase the additional horsepower from the engine, more than the initially suggested 10% shorter DZR (Direct Injection) time would indicate.
For example, activating my Auto-Hal box at full throttle above 140 km/h is practically no longer noticeable as additional power, but if, instead, (hypothetically) one could switch between the 205mm and 216mm nozzles, I would bet that this would be noticeably different: the additional fun factor corresponds to approximately 30 more horsepower

Personal Conclusion of the Entire Operation:
I have felt and seen in the rearview mirror that the replacement of the injectors, from the perspective of performance, is significantly superior to the generally accepted practice of extending the injection duration (regardless of whether it's done through chiptuning or with a box) – provided that the engine can handle the increased peak pressures over the long term.
I fear that I will not be able to resist temptation for long.

*LECHZ*

For example, turning on my Auto-Hal box at full throttle above 140 km/h is practically no longer noticeable as additional boost...

Hello Ulf!

I'm assuming that your box doesn't increase the charging pressure...
Therefore, the amount of air in the cylinder is the same, and whether the injection time is extended (only for a boxer engine) or the amount is increased at the same time (only for injectors), the amount of diesel that can be burned is approximately the same!

So, entweder er raucht extrem viel (due to lack of air), or the dose is so small that it's barely injected for longer...

In both cases, the amount of diesel burned hardly increases, and therefore, hardly any additional power gain is expected...

If I am mistaken, I request clarification...

Hello
Michl

Hi

Quote:

I'm assuming that your box isn't increasing the pressure... Therefore, the amount of air in the cylinder is the same, and whether the injection time is extended (only in a boxer engine) or the amount is increased at the same time (only in a carburetor engine), the amount of diesel that can be burned is approximately the same!

If "approximately" is taken very broadly, it might work.

But the flow rate through the large nozzles is dependent on speed (see technical article), while the flow rate through the box is primarily dependent on pressure, but is fundamentally not dependent on speed.

Quote:

So, entweder er raucht extrem viel (due to lack of air), oder die Menge, die er erhält, ist so gering, dass er kaum mehr spritzt...

It makes a difference whether the additional amount "comes at the same time or later."
In the MTZ-concept of the AFN, it was essentially depicted that by "post-spraying" (similar to the electronic tuning of the 1Z to 110 PS), the soot content increases, while "pre-spraying" - always with the original 1Z nozzles - instead results in peak pressures without (comparably) higher soot values - both times at the same boost pressure.

Quote:

In both cases, the amount of diesel burned hardly increases, and therefore, hardly any additional power gain is expected...

If you ever get to experience a car that has only been tuned, "before and after," and you consider anything less than 20 "felt" horsepower to be "barely," you will probably change your mind

Quote:

If I am wrong, please correct me....

have I thereby attempted